I gave you evidence for the BB being unnatural. Your response is to claim it is natural without offering any evidence. That is hardly convincing.

All the matter/energy in the universe, packed into a single point in space. What exactly is natural about that? How could the universe get into such a state? All I can think of is gravitational collapse, but that would result in a black hole and black holes do not explode (nothing can escape a black hole). So I think there is no obvious, natural explanation. — Devans99

You’re assuming here that ‘natural’ is the current state of the universe as we understand it, when in fact ‘natural’ is the entire process of the unfolding universe - including the BB - whether we understand it or not.

You are assuming everything is natural with no justification whatsoever. Please read this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/304398

Sorry for quoting you without permission. — TheMadFool

I'm cool with it. I'm just making people aware of the reason for any apparent mismatch.

I have been on fora where trolls would quite intentionally post inflammatory stuff then drastically tone it down after people reacted to it, thus making the reaction seem ridiculously overblown. Obviously I'm not doing that - I'm just an obsessive self editor. But such experiences have left me aware for the potential for abuse when people get to edit their own posts after they've been responded to. Hence I thought it important to flag what actually happened.

Back to the matter at hand, I think the issues raised by @leo's posts are quite complex. I do think there is some validity to his (given the moniker, I assume it's a "him") points, so I suppose I have to cop to the fact that my first post on this thread was perhaps simplistic.

That said, I also think the theoretical perspective he appears to be arguing for can be taken too far. It's in finding the middle ground that things get complicated -- but also, I have some hope, extremely productive. That's why I would like to write a more serious reply. Hopefully sometime in the next week I will.

I might as well admit that in real life I suffer from this:

https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/about/

So as much as I enjoy playing here, I'm still figuring out how much of the tiny little bit of energy I have I can afford to spend on this site. :meh:

So far as theism goes, whether it's falsifiable or not, or indeed actually falsified, depends on your definitions. Much like psychoanalysis, you can have a simple, straightforward version of the theory that's testable -- and which very quickly ends up being debunked. The omnigod favored by Western philosophy is clearly grossly incompatible with even the most cursory inspection of the world we live in. It's not only falsifyable: it's clearly falsified. But with theism as with psychoanalysis, you can always salvage the theory at the expense of its falsifyability.

And, as I have said elsewhere, the theology of Lovecraft is not only unfalsified, but fundamentally disturbingly plausible. Though human nature being what it is, it's probably important to stress that I do not mean that Cthulhu is literally there to be found at the bottom of the Pacific ocean! I just mean that entities along the general lines suggested by Lovecraft are... plausible. Under what definitions a belief in such creatures would qualify as theism or deism I leave for others to discuss.

And now, since I'm a righteous dude,
Here's a musical interlude!

That is is idiotic - the BB created nature it did not happen in nature. You can't just define reality as 100% natural - you have to demonstrate that with logic or evidence - this is a philosophy forum.

I will give you a better definition. Something that is natural has a greater than 0% chance of occurring naturally - yes? Then if time is infinite and the BB is natural, by that definition, there should be an infinite number of BBs at each point in space. There is only one BB. The following conclusions are therefore unescapable:

- The BB is not natural
Or
- Time has a start

Either way points to a non-natural creation of the universe. — Devans99

No. You cannot claim to have such a comprehensive understanding of nature for you to conclude beyond all doubt that the BB does not have a greater than 0% chance of occurring naturally. Plus your suggestion that ‘time has a start’ shows a lack of necessary understanding of the nature of time in relation to physics. Read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’.

Natural events come in pluralities. The BB is a singleton. Therefore you cannot claim it to be natural.

There are many argument that time has a start. One is that the existence of anything at all in the universe requires a brute fact - IE something uncaused. Brute facts can only exist outside of time (they exist without tense - they just 'ARE' - they have no cause because they are beyond time and thus beyond causality).

There are no valid arguments for time without a start - that would imply things exist 'forever' in time which is impossible - 'forever' has no start and if something has no start, it cannot exist.

That said, I also think the theoretical perspective he appears to be arguing for can be taken too far. It's in finding the middle ground that things get complicated -- but also, I have some hope, extremely productive. That's why I would like to write a more serious reply. Hopefully sometime in the next week I will. — Theologian

I happen to believe that the perspective I presented can't be taken too far, that it goes all the way, that any theory is ultimately a story we tell ourselves, that if we so wish any theory can be never verified nor falsified. This may lead one to feel dizzy and lost at first, without anything concrete to hang onto, but on the contrary I believe that perspective is liberating: we create our own stories, we create the world we live in, and we can hang on to our stories.

But if you do happen to find a middle ground that puts a limit to that perspective, I would be happy to hear it, because it would mean there is something I haven't taken into account, and I see finding the limits to one's view as the fertile ground for subsequent discoveries and breakthroughs. Take your time though, no rush :)

The usual view is that there is an objective distinction between scientific and non-scientific theories, that there are objective criteria that can demarcate between the two, but finding the limits to that view lies in realizing that it is people's subjective desires that determine whether a theory is classified as scientific or not, rather than there being an objective demarcation between science and non-science. This is known as the demarcation problem, but that problem disappears when we stop assuming that such a demarcation exists independently of us creating it.

Then without that distinction in mind there aren't scientific and non-scientific theories, there are only theories. Theories that tell a story, about what we are, where we come from, where we are going, what's possible and what's not possible, what's going to happen. Stories that shape what we see, how we feel, what we think, what we create. What one story interprets as hallucination, or delusion, or imagination, another would interpret as something concrete, something meaningful. When one story interprets the outer world as primary and the inner world as a byproduct, another story interprets the inner world as primary and the outer world as a byproduct. There are stories that do not care about creating more powerful technology, about sending space vessels to lifeless places, about controlling others and nature, they find relevance and meaning elsewhere.

In one story there is the idea that an asteroid could wipe us out, that the Sun will die, and in that story only more powerful technology could save us, more accurate predictions, but in another story it is that powerful technology that will destroy us because we are not ready to use it, and in that story if we evolved spiritually the asteroid and the Sun would not be a threat anymore.

There is the sense that we do not only create, we also discover. But maybe what we discover is what others have created?

Yes, that's pretty much where I thought you were coming from. I'll try to get back to you in the not too distant future.

(actually strictly speaking all observations can be made consistent with a theory) — leo

This is very deep and disturbing. Deep because why then should we favor one theory over the other since the criteria for discrimination can't be truth. Why reject God for instance?

Disturbing because it undermines the foundation of all knowledge. Do we really know anything at all?

Thank you very much for the Andrei Linde video. I'm still trying to understand the content but very thought provoking.

I agree with what you said. I was only commenting on a very common criticism leveled by opponents of religion against Theism being so comprehensive in explanatory power, that too without providing detailed descriptions, as to be useless.

Thanks :smile:

This is very deep and disturbing. Deep because why then should we favor one theory over the other since the criteria for discrimination can't be truth. Why reject God for instance?

Disturbing because it undermines the foundation of all knowledge. Do we really know anything at all? — TheMadFool

I think ultimately it is our will that determines what theory we favor. And that because our will shapes what we know then our knowledge is impermanent, what we will also is impermanent, but that doesn't have to be disturbing, we can see ourselves as creators of knowledge, as shapers of the world, rather than as passive meaningless slaves obeying to unchanging laws. Many claim to adhere to the Cogito, and yet the rest of the time they behave and think as if they know other things, even if there is no foundation to support them besides their will.

Natural events come in pluralities. The BB is a singleton. Therefore you cannot claim it to be natural. — Devans99

I don’t follow this. Are you suggesting that unique events cannot occur naturally? That because I am unique, for instance, I cannot claim to be natural?

I think your use of natural/unnatural as a dichotomy here is unhelpful. Natural implies either innate, instinctive, expected or not man-made. What is the purpose of declaring the BB to be not natural? Are you suggesting a metaphysical aspect? A supernatural one?

There are many argument that time has a start. One is that the existence of anything at all in the universe requires a brute fact - IE something uncaused. Brute facts can only exist outside of time (they exist without tense - they just 'ARE' - they have no cause because they are beyond time and thus beyond causality). — Devans99

I happen to agree that ‘time’ is finite - I just don’t agree that this points to a non-natural creation of the universe. I also think that for something to exist ‘outside of time’ or ‘beyond causality’ does not make it ‘unnatural’.

I don’t follow this. Are you suggesting that unique events cannot occur naturally? That because I am unique, for instance, I cannot claim to be natural? — Possibility

I would argue that you are a human and therefore not unique in the sense you are a class of human (your DNA maybe unique but you are still an instance of human). In the same way, a supernova is a natural event - they are all slightly different but fall under the same class and there are multiple instances of such events - so they have the signature of a natural event.

My argument is if an event is unique (the only representative of its class) then we cannot assume it is a natural event because every class of natural event that we know about comes in multiple instances.

So I agree that the unitary nature of the BB is not sufficient to prove it is unnatural, but it is different from all other natural events which is a reason to suspect it as unnatural.

If the BB was natural, I would expect many instances of it - galaxies all receding in different directions at different speeds instead of the uniform relationship between distance and redshift that is observed due to a single BB.

I happen to agree that ‘time’ is finite - I just don’t agree that this points to a non-natural creation of the universe. I also think that for something to exist ‘outside of time’ or ‘beyond causality’ does not make it ‘unnatural’. — Possibility

My opinion is that creation of a dimension is a discontinuous process so it looks unnatural. I find it hard to fathom a natural explanation for the creation of time. Again that is not evidence enough in itself for a creator, but it adds to the weight of evidence. Other considerations:

- Nature always tends to equilibrium if left alone. We are not in equilibrium. It suggest to me that some sort of intelligence must exist which is the reason why we are not in equilibrium.
- I believe the fine tuning argument is basically sound and points to an intelligent fine tuner.
- The classical cosmological arguments point to the first cause being a self-driven agent, which seems to me to require intelligence.

So I believe there is an intelligent agent as the creator of the universe - on weight of evidence.

I am not religious and the agent is not some sort of perfect being with the 3Os.

I would argue that you are a human and therefore not unique in the sense you are a class of human (your DNA maybe unique but you are still an instance of human). In the same way, a supernova is a natural event - they are all slightly different but fall under the same class and there are multiple instances of such events - so they have the signature of a natural event. — Devans99

To say that an event is ‘natural’ because there are multiple instances of such events in the same ‘class’ has a certain meaning for you. But it has no objective meaning - these are your evaluations based on your relationship to the meaning of these terms, not traits inherent to the events themselves. That’s fine, unless you’re using these terms to make statements which you believe to be objective.

This is why I asked you clarify whether by ‘unnatural’ you meant supernatural or metaphysical. I don’t find that your use of ‘natural/unnatural’ reliably communicates what you mean in this context. To me, it comes across as an arbitrary evaluation based on what ‘natural’ means to you. Likewise, the ‘class of human’ is not something inherent to me as an event, but a meaning attributed to the event by other ‘humans’. They are not objectively definable terms.

If you’re going to discuss cosmological events in relation to what exists ‘beyond time’, you need to get a clearer picture of the multi-dimensional structure you’re referring to, and how you fit into it. In my view, for instance, I am attempting to navigate at least six dimensions that I’m aware of. In this perspective, ‘beyond time’ is not located outside the universe for me.

My opinion is that creation of a dimension is a discontinuous process so it looks unnatural. I find it hard to fathom a natural explanation for the creation of time. Again that is not evidence enough in itself for a creator, but it adds to the weight of evidence. — Devans99

I think perhaps you’re looking at it wrong. Consider how one might move from ‘Flatland’ to 3-dimensional space, for instance. It’s not a matter of an intelligent agent ‘creating’ another dimension, but of first interacting with something beyond what we understand, and then gradually developing awareness of it despite the lack of understanding. This is how I believe time ‘started’.

Other considerations:

- Nature always tends to equilibrium if left alone. We are not in equilibrium. It suggest to me that some sort of intelligence must exist which is the reason why we are not in equilibrium.
- I believe the fine tuning argument is basically sound and points to an intelligent fine tuner.
- The classical cosmological arguments point to the first cause being a self-driven agent, which seems to me to require intelligence.

So I believe there is an intelligent agent as the creator of the universe - on weight of evidence. — Devans99

What do you mean by ‘intelligent’? This is another one of those words that appears to have the same meaning for everyone, but on closer inspection the conceptual space it occupies can be very different, depending on how you understand and evaluate, in this case, ‘the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills’.

I believe the fine tuning argument points to a level of intelligence (or at least a capacity to develop intelligence) inherent in all matter. And I believe the classical cosmological arguments point to this inherent capacity. In my opinion there is no need to venture beyond what is ‘natural’ for your ‘intelligent agent’ - on weight of evidence.

This is why I asked you clarify whether by ‘unnatural’ you meant supernatural or metaphysical. — Possibility

- Natural is something that has a greater than 0% probability of occurring naturally.
- Unnatural is something that has a 0% probability of occurring naturally.

Something that is unnatural - not of nature - I guess is synonymous with supernatural.

The BB, if it were a natural event and time were infinite, would have occurred an infinite number of times at each point in space.

I'm glad you agree that time is finite. Still, one instance only of BBs over the last 14 billion years seem to place it firmly in the unnatural camp (using the above definitions).

Another way to define it is nature is spacetime. Spacetime must of been created by something beyond space time. Something unnatural.

It’s not a matter of an intelligent agent ‘creating’ another dimension, but of first interacting with something beyond what we understand, and then gradually developing awareness of it despite the lack of understanding. — Possibility

That suggests to me that the additional dimension of time was discovered rather than created?

What do you mean by ‘intelligent’? — Possibility

I guess I just mean capable of rational thought and resulting independent actions.

In my opinion there is no need to venture beyond what is ‘natural’ for your ‘intelligent agent’ - on weight of evidence. — Possibility

The creation (or discovery) of time, the FTA, etc... seem to imply a timeless intelligence external to spacetime. I would define that as an unnatural intelligence.

Still, one instance only of BBs over the last 14 billion years seem to place it firmly in the unnatural camp (using the above definitions). — Devans99

No, it doesn’t. Your definition says ‘greater than 0% probability’. That means you only need ONE instance to place it above 0% probability. A probability of 0.000000000000000000001% is still greater than 0%.

That suggests to me that the additional dimension of time was discovered rather than created? — Devans99

Yes, it was discovered - by humans. But all animals (and many chemical reactions) have at least been aware of it to some degree.

The creation (or discovery) of time, the FTA, etc... seem to imply a timeless intelligence external to spacetime. I would define that as an unnatural intelligence. — Devans99

I’m not sure what ‘the FTA’ refers to, but this ‘unnatural intelligence’ you’re talking about is human intelligence. We have the capacity to interact with the universe beyond what you refer to as ‘nature’. We can integrate information acquired from beyond our capacity to physically interact with the universe: from the far reaches of space to billions of years before we even existed. You can’t tell me that’s not at least a capacity for timeless intelligence external to spacetime.

No, it doesn’t. Your definition says ‘greater than 0% probability’. That means you only need ONE instance to place it above 0% probability. A probability of 0.000000000000000000001% is still greater than 0%. — Possibility

OK but is stands out like a sore thumb compared to all the other natural events (that happen multiple times) - sufficient to be very suspicious about labelling it natural.

Yes, it was discovered - by humans. But all animals (and many chemical reactions) have at least been aware of it to some degree. — Possibility

I believe time is a creation. Causality requires the minimum of one uncaused, brute fact to act as the tip of the causal pyramid and cause everything else. It is only possible to exist as an uncaused brute fact if you exist outside time; existing 'forever' inside time is logically impossible (cannot exist with no temporal start).

That implies timeless thing(s) exist. The timeless thing(s) must have caused the creation of time.

The BB seems to support this view - it looks a lot like the start of time what with time slowing down due to the intense gravitational field.

I’m not sure what ‘the FTA’ refers to — Possibility

Fine Tuning Argument.

I believe time is a creation. Causality requires the minimum of one uncaused, brute fact to act as the tip of the causal pyramid and cause everything else. It is only possible to exist as an uncaused brute fact if you exist outside time; existing 'forever' inside time is logically impossible (cannot exist with no temporal start). — Devans99

If you want an ‘uncaused brute fact’, then in my view what you’re looking for is potential. You might name it ‘God’, the source, a ‘timeless thing’ or whatever you want, but the way I see it, potential is all that exists beyond space, time, value and meaning. It’s surprising how well suited it is to the role, though, when you think about it.

The BB seems to support this view - it looks a lot like the start of time what with time slowing down due to the intense gravitational field. — Devans99

Slowing down relative to what and where? I don’t see what time dilation due to a gravitational field has to do with the apparent ‘creation’ of time.

A probability of 0.000000000000000000001% is still greater than 0%. — Possibility

:rofl: :rofl:

The difference is that if you pick God, you still need science if you want to achieve anything. Whereas once you have a ToE, you no longer need God. In today's world, where all but the most cryptic mysteries are left unresolved. Only that small space remains for God to hide in. The God of the gaps. But once we figure it all out, he'll have nothing to hide behind and it will be clear, he was nowhere to be found.

'God's realm has shrunk to being constrained to do only the same as what would naturally happen.